When testimony, etc. in a civil trial is at issue and criminal prosecution is found, if facts different from the facts recognized in the civil judgment are found in the criminal trial, evidence records of facts recognized in the final civil judgment are found.

Although the facts recognized in a final and conclusive civil judgment become significant evidence, barring any special circumstance, if the testimony, etc. in the civil judgment becomes problematic after the civil judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the criminal prosecution results in the recognition of facts different from the facts recognized in the civil judgment, the facts cannot be finalized only by the civil judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Feb. 8, 1991) (Gong1990, 1950)

Attorney Kim Dong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Intervenor’s Defense

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na34818 delivered on April 4, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant and completed the registration, on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff, which was completed on October 23, 1978, was made in order to secure the Defendant’s loan claims in order to secure the Defendant’s loan claims in the order of the first instance trial co-defendants, and subsequently, became lawful due to the extinction of the secured obligation, based

(2) However, among the evidence admitted by the court below, evidence that corresponds to the fact that the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s title was made in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation to borrow a loan against the order of interest, only evidence Nos. 7-1, 23, No. 4-1, 2, 4-2, 8-2, 1, 23, 10-2, 11-B, 12-2, 12-2, 12-2, and 4-2, etc. of the Plaintiff’s title among the evidence admitted by the court below, may support the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff purchased the instant site as alleged by the Plaintiff and completed the registration, and the remaining evidence seems not to support the Defendant’s claim.

However, among the above evidence, the evidence Nos. 12 (Protocol of Pleadings) of the above evidence responded to the plaintiff's acceptance of the land of this case as the debt repayment due to the claim against the Lee Jong-sung's order, and the plaintiff's assertion that the participant was wrong, it cannot be said that the above statement of pleadings alone cannot be deemed that the land of this case was transferred to the plaintiff for the purpose of security, and therefore, the court below should have judged it as evidence by taking the above final civil judgment into consideration.

(3) According to the records, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant and the defendant against the non-party 1, etc. on the charge of perjury and attempted fraud, etc. on March 2, 1989, and the defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of the non-party 1 on the charge of attempted fraud, etc. on March 2, 1989. Unlike the above civil judgment, in the above civil judgment, the defendant borrowed 1.5 million won from the above and the non-party 1,50,000 won from the above and the non-party 1, who secured the land and the building registered on the ground of this case as security and borrowed 1.5 million won from the above above and the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership and the establishment of superficies was completed on the site of this case, but the above principal and interest were delayed after the decision was made after reduction of 2,900,000 won until the plaintiff made the payment to the defendant and prepared a sales contract to sell the site of this case in the purchase price, and issued a certificate of ownership transfer registration, etc.

(4) The facts acknowledged in a final civil judgment are reasonable, unless there are special circumstances. However, if the testimony, etc. in the civil judgment becomes a problem after the civil judgment became final and conclusive as in this case, and the testimony, etc. in the civil judgment becomes a matter, and later, the defendant couple's criminal prosecution became final and conclusive in the criminal judgment, and the facts have come to be recognized differently from the facts recognized in the above civil judgment, the facts cannot be finalized by only the above civil judgment.

Furthermore, according to the records, the defendant couple argued that he provided the land of this case as security and borrowed money from the above above above to the investigative agency, and that he did not have prepared a protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of prior suit. On October 14, 1976, 1.5 million won was added to 500,000 won of his own money and 1.5 million won was directly lent to the defendant at the corporate bond broker office of Korea-Japan and received documents necessary for provisional registration in order to secure the above borrowed money from the defendant. In order to prepare the protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of protocol of prior suit, the defendant was signed with the legal office of this case with the defendant, and the building on the land of this case was unregistered, and therefore, the defendant was argued that he would have paid the above money to the defendant's husband and wife in lieu of the above husband and wife, and the court below argued that the above appraisal of the defendant couple's testimony and the above statement of each of the above cases had been accepted from the above husband and the above.

In addition, the sales contract for the instant building site states that the Plaintiff purchased the instant building site and the ground building from the Defendant at KRW 2,90,000,000, and there is no indication that the Plaintiff will transfer the ownership for the purpose of security. As to the instant building site, a provisional registration is already established under the name of the above-hee, and there was no need to re-register the ownership of the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, rather than the Plaintiff, in order to secure the repayment of the above loan, even though it was not necessary to re-register the ownership in the name of the Plaintiff. In light of the above,

(5) Nevertheless, the court below's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the registration of ownership transfer for the site of this case was made under the name of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence alone without any deliberation on this point was the purpose of the security for the obligation of the judgment, and that it was somewhat unfavorable, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Ultimately,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)